Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Affirmative action Message-ID: <360@sftri.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 09:45:27 EST Article-I.D.: sftri.360 Posted: Thu Feb 21 09:45:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 02:40:13 EST References: <343@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J. Lines: 59 Richard Carnes writes: .... > Gordon Banks argues that AA is unjust because it mandates > differential treatment of people on the basis of their race or sex. > To this I make essentially the same response as I did to the > "taxation is theft" argument: Why is it necessarily unjust to > discriminate in order to reverse past injustices? Is it not a valid > goal to try to find ways to better the lot of previously excluded, > oppressed or enslaved groups? Why do you think it is OK to discriminate against one particular group but not against another? You seem to be saying two wrongs make a right, and I don't buy it. If it's wrong to discriminate against any particular group on the basis of race, it's wrong to discriminate against any group. Yes, it is a valid goal to try to better the lot of previously excluded, oppressed, or enslaved groups, but, in my view, the ends do not justify the means in this case. > Affirmative action was designed to oppose and alleviate the effects > of centuries of racism and sexism. The claim that AA is racist or > sexist is either merely inflammatory or merely lunatic. If you are > calling AA racist simply in order to tar it with the brush of racism > and arouse an unthinking emotional response against it, then you're > being inflammatory. If you are calling it racist because you think > AA is an attempt to keep blacks in a subordinate place in society > (the usual meaning of "racism"), then you're just a lunatic. At one company I worked at, (not my current employer), a memo was sent around detailing my department's hiring needs for the upcoming year. This company felt that they were making a strong effort to bring minorities and women in, and prided themselves that their AA program was working well; there were often articles about it in the company paper. The memo said that the department was looking for about 9 new hires, four to be women. Three new hires were to be black, and "ideally..." at least one Hispanic. I felt that such goals or quotas were very strongly racist and sexist and had no part of an ongoing AA program. Now, which am I, a lunatic or merely inflammatory? I see nothing wrong with hiring people on the basis of their talents. Besides, this sort of thing merely perpetuates the problems it tries to correct-- "Whew, we've hired our quota of . Now we can really get down to hiring our kind of people." AA has laudable goals, but people (Americans in particular) are very stubborn-- "once they get an ideer in their 'ead, there's noo shiftin' it." It can be very difficult to force people to do as you want, even by force of law or company regulations (e.g., Prohibition or driving 55). You generally have a much better shot at them by trying to educate them, and get them to think differently, an aspect that many AA programs I feel, ignore almost totally. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom DISCLAIMER: This article represents my personal opinion alone, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anybody else, or my employer. Although my personal opinion may differ from my employers, I will continue to do my work in accordance with company regulations as long as I remain an employee.